With steadily increasing reports of animal abuse/cruelty, it comes as no surprise that the issue has gained significant attention by both the media and legislators nationwide. Currently, all fifty states have established misdemeanor and felony provisions for these crimes; however, many believe that there should be additional measures for regulating convicted animal abuse offenders. Lawmakers throughout the U.S. have proposed legislation designed to curtail increasing instances of animal abuse/cruelty by suggesting the implementation of statewide and local animal abuse registries, similar to those in Tennessee, Suffolk County, New York, and Hillsborough County, Florida.
One reason why animal abuse registries have gained momentum at the state and local level is due to evidence of a strong correlation between repeated acts of animal abuse and increased instances of domestic and child abuse as indicated by a 1999 study from the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals .
In Florida, during the 2017 Legislative Session, House representatives Jared Moskowitz (D), Blaise Ingoglia (R), and David Richardson (D) proposed House Bill 871, which called for the creation and maintenance of a publicly accessible registry list of persons convicted of certain animal abuse offenses. Similar to the animal abuse registry implemented by Tennessee legislators in 2015, House Bill 871 would require the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to: create and maintain an online list of convicted animal abusers; include a booking photograph along with any other identifying information, such as the convicted abuser’s full name; maintain the identifying information for a period of two years upon a first time conviction and five years upon a subsequent conviction; remove names from the registry of persons whose offense has been sealed or expunged per section 943.0585, Florida Statues; send annual notification letters to registered breeders urging them be wary of persons listed on the registry; and send annual notices to pet dealers, animal shelters, humane organizations, etc. notifying them of changes to the registry including newly listed persons.
127 our experts are availableright now
The goal of this registry is to increase public safety, provide education and awareness, while simultaneously warning community members, pet dealers, and animal adoption centers of offenders.
Although House Bill 871 died in the Justice Appropriation Subcommittee, it is important to consider the fiscal impacts that could have resulted if the bill had passed. Several studies indicate that such registries are not effective and are costly to maintain . For example, a fiscal impact statement for a 2011 proposed animal abuse registry in Virginia estimated costs at $1,000,000.
Additionally, a proposal in California indicated that costs could range from $750,000 to $2,000,000. Creating the registry is a costly project, which would include additions to the duties of current FDLE employees in order to create internal procedures and policies that would govern how the agency would maintain the registry. In addition, FDLE would need to account for a portion of the agency’s budget to be allocated for the creation and maintenance of the registry.
Considering the 2017 FDLE budget allocated approx. $1,938,180 (first year of a multiyear project) to improve the sex offender registry by rebuilding the infrastructure, it can be assumed that a similar figure would need to be apportioned for the animal abuse registry . While many existing registries require a registration fee (typically between $50-$100 annually), the number of individuals who are actually required to register is traditionally low, making the registration fees obsolete in comparison to the average cost of maintaining the registry itself. This diverts resources away from other projects and programs.
While the financial burdens imposed by the establishment of an animal abuse registry are significant, there are other impacts that could occur as a result of the creation of the registry. For instance, there is evidence to support that sex offender registries lead to an increase in plea-bargains for serious crimes. Likewise, an animal abuse registry may have a negative effect on the prosecution of serious animal cruelty crimes as it could result in more severe offenses being plead down to misdemeanor offenses.
Furthermore, registries, such as the one proposed by House Bill 871, can put additional burdens on animal sheltering organizations. For example, the bill calls for FDLE to send annual notices to various pet handling organizations (i.e. shelters, animal control agencies, pet dealers, etc.) informing them of the registry and newly added offenders. This adds to the procedural duties and responsibilities of those organizations with respect to documenting legal sales and adoptions of animals. In addition, the implications for such organizations for failing to check the registry could prove costly and detrimental to the integrity of the organizations.
